NIH Fact Sheet, January 1995
NIH TARGETS PUBLIC AND CONGRESS TO SELL
HUMAN EMBRYO RESEARCH
A Dateline Summary of the NIH and Embryo Experimentation
September 27, 1994: The Human Embryo Research Panel of the National Instit
utes of Health (NIH) released its recommendations for federally funded re
search projects involving human embryos.
December 1 and 2, 1994: The Advisory Committee to the Director of the NIH
unanimously approved the September 27 recommendations.
December 2, 1994: President Clinton "directed" the NIH not to allocate fed
eral funds for the "creation" of human embryos for research purposes-but
failed to address the use of private funding for such purposes. Clinton
also did not discuss possible taxpayer funding of experiments on other
human embryos-those who, at their creation, were not intended to be used
in research.
Today: The decision to accept or reject, in whole or in part, the Panel's
September 27 recommendations for federal funding of human embryo research
is being weighed by Dr. Harold Varmus, director of the NIH. Dr. Varmus has
sole power and discretion over this decision.
Also pending, however, is possible Congressional action to prevent the
financing of experiments on tiny human beings.
THE HUMAN EMBRYO-SCIENCE FACT
There is an unquestioned international scientific/medical consensus that
the life of every human being begins at fertilization. That a human being's
life begins at fertilization is a biological fact-not a matter of opinion.
It is this fact that provides the objective basis for any conclusion about
the moral status (personhood) of the human embryo (i.e., about the value
inherent in a human being in the first seven to eight weeks of life).
THE NIH-SCIENCE FICTION
The NIH, however, refuses to deal with the scientific reality that the
human embryo is a human being. Instead, it bases its conclusion about
the moral status of the human embryo on incorrect science. It is upon
this bad science and poor moral reasoning that the NIH would justify the
funding of fatal experiments on the youngest human beings.
THE NIH CONTROVERSY IN QUOTES
Unless otherwise noted, the following statements were made by members of the
NIH's Human Embryo Research Panel, its Advisory Committee to the Director,
or its Council Representatives at public meetings held December 1 and 2,
1994. The page numbers listed after certain quotes refer to the transcript
of the December 1 and 2 public meetings. Commentaries on the quotes are
those of American Life League, Inc.
". . . the preimplantation embryo merits respect as a developing form of
human life, but . . . the embryo's claims upon us are not so great as to
outweigh those of infants, children, or adults . . ." (Dr. Ronald Green,
December 1, 1994, p. 69).
This "different" moral status of the young embryo is the basis for the
NIH's recommendations in support of human embryo research. If it recog
nized that the moral status of the early human embryo is the same as for
all other human beings, the NIH could not justify its recommendations.
Some at the NIH expressed discomfort with the implications of a "different"
moral status:
"I am so excited about the research, but I still can't get past this point
of acceptance of this vulnerable embryo . . . as not being protected by
the same protection that is accorded by law to the more developed embryo
. . . how can we, and do we have the right to draw the line at that point
in time?" (Dr. Janice Zeller, December 1, 1994, p. 146).
The majority of public responses to the NIH recommendations from the press,
academics and professionals alike have expressed deep outrage:
"The idea of the manufacture of such a magnificent thing as a human life
purely for the purpose of conducting research is grotesque, at best.
Whether or not it is federally funded" (editorial, Chicago Sun Times, Dec
ember 10, 1994, p. 25).
"The creation of human embryos specifically for research that will destroy
them is unconscionable. The government has no business funding it."
(editorial, The Washington Post, October 2, 1994, p. C6).
"Most people instinctively recoil in shock and disgust, even horror, from
such a proposal. That reaction should be encouraged, not deplored. It be
speaks not scientific illiteracy but moral common sense" (A Brave New
World Is Hatched, by George Weigel, President of the Ethics and Public
Policy Center, Los Angeles Times, November 27, 1994).
"I think it's a rather profound decision to say that a government agency
will use its money, its taxpayer dollars, to designate a class of subhuman
humans that will be there solely to be experimented upon and then discard
them at the whim of science. You are commanding living, human life to the
custody of science solely to do science, and . . . that is an extraor
dinary if not a profound step that I don't believe should be taken"
(Dr. Bernadine Healy, former NIH Director, MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour,
December 6, 1994).
Does the American Public Misunderstand the Issue-
or Does It Understand It All too Well?
Whether hopelessly self-deceived, or outright manipulative, the NIH Panel
blames the "ignorant" American public (and what they refer to as the
"public yuk factor") for the confusion and outrage:
"What you are dealing with is a very hot topic, and . . . it is not well
understood publicly" (Dr. Steven Muller, December 1, 1994, p. 102).
"The problem is reaching the 50, 60, 70 percent, probably the majority of
the population that really would be in favor of this if they understood it
. . . the great majority of people have no conception of any of this" (Dr.
Robert Grossman, December 1, 1994, p. 144).
". . . most people who take the time to understand what we are talking
about do not regard the single fertilized cell or the immediate cells
which derive from it as an embryo. However, . . . that would not make a
difference to the people who believe that fertilization immediately creates
a being which has the same moral status as a person" (Dr. Nannerl Keohane,
December 1, 1994, p. 97).
". . . the people who are concerned about ends and means here are partly
misconceptualizing the issue, and they see this as the abuse of formed
fetuses and human subjects and the like" (Dr. Ronald Green, December 1,
1994, p. 112).
The NIH Perceives not a Moral Problem,
but a Marketing Failure
". . . we need to decide where the science is and then try to sell this
report" (Dr. Barbara Rimer, December 1, 1994, p. 147) (emphasis added).
". . . we should angle decisions based on the scientific aspects . . .
Then I believe it will be rather easy to sell the benefits of the re
search to the public, and they will accept it" (Dr. Gail Cassell,
December 1, 1994, p. 150).
"We can't keep hearing the term 'sell the report' . . . we really ought
be talking about informing or educating, because selling implies some
thing a little bit scandalous or something under the table" (Dr. David
Guyton, December 1, 1994, p. 150).
"For other people who have different moral approaches to this issue, I
think it would be a good idea to use terminology which avoids the misper
ception that may get in the way of understanding what it is that we are
trying to achieve" (Dr. Nannerl Keohane, December 1, 1994, p. 97).
"Several people have criticized the cards and letters from Ma and Pa Kettle
back home because they were just signatures and things, and I have to ob
ject to that. The fact that they took the time to sign their name is very,
very important. If we value that and bring them along and they can under
stand, they need to understand the negative impact of failing to do this re
search, the impact on family structure, family values, on the lives of
children and the lives of embryos" (Dr. Westley Clark, December 1, 1994,
p. 109).
"I think some of the misperceptions and some of the controversy that this
panel has clearly generated have to do with the way in which the name it
self was framed-human embryo research. That makes it sound to people who
know nothing more than that as though we are indeed talking about scien
tists experimenting upon advanced embryos and fetuses, which is, of course,
very far from what we are talking about. I found myself wondering . . .
whether some of that might have been avoided if, from the beginning, we had
had a different name and if the name of the panel had been Research on In
Vitro Fertilization and Preimplantation Embryos" (Dr. Nannerl Keohane,
December 1, 1994, p. 96).
"I would lay out the most positive, acceptable types of research and start
with that, and then educate the public over time to go beyond that" (Dr.
Ralph Snyderman, December 1, 1994, p. 138).
". . . the effort to anticipate what would be incremental doesn't work very
well in this area; . . . people are broadly offended on a variety of
grounds, including those who feel that any research on the early embryo
is impermissible, those who are concerned about slippery slopes and means/
end issues" (Dr. Ronald Green, December 1, 1994, p. 121).
The NIH Wants to "Sell" Congress, Too
". . . to avoid the problems . . . Congressional staffs, the lay public,
and Congress all have to be sold it or educated very, very thoroughly in
terms of what are the benefits to mankind of this kind of research, and
then implement it . . ." (Dr. Edwin Rubel, December 1, 1994, p. 148-149)
(emphasis added).
"Not much has been said about the education of congressional represent
atives and congressional staffs to sort of ward off the bombshells . . .
I'd like to know if it's possible to kind of rename this from human embryo
research to fertilization research, which I think would defuse some of
this" (Dr. Edwin Rubel, December 2, 1994, p. 45).
". . . given the scrutiny at this point, it [renaming the panel] would be
considered transparent and manipulative" (Dr. David Challoner, December
2, 1994, p. 45).
Conclusion
The embryo experimentation controversy is not a discussion of "opinions,"
but of the NIH's continuing misrepresentation of scientific facts and bio
ethical arguments to "sell" to the American public and to Congress its
own perverse agenda.
Please write, call or fax your Congressman and Senators immediately and
urge them to support a debate, with full public participation, on:
* the constitutionality of the government or private entities creating
individual human beings (embryos)-and using already-existing "spare" human
beings (embryos)-for biomedical research that will kill them; and
* the morality of forcing the American public to subsidize this activity.
It's time to make the NIH defend its "science" and its "moral" claims in
the open light of public debate.
Senator ____________________
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3121
Congressman ____________________
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-3121
As of November 21, 1994, the National Institutes of Health had received a
total of 56,809 public responses opposing human embryo research and 1,287
favoring it.
Produced and Distributed by:
American Life League, Inc.
P.O. Box 1350
Stafford, VA 22555
(703) 659-4171
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) American Life League BBS -- 703-659-7111
Provided courtesy of:
The Catholic Resource Network
Trinity Communications 703-791-4336